[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202005101331.F0ADFAD@keescook>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 13:33:35 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] exec: Stop open coding mutex_lock_killable of
cred_guard_mutex
On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 12:18:06PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 11:48 AM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Oleg modified the code that did
> > "mutex_lock_interruptible(¤t->cred_guard_mutex)" to return
> > -ERESTARTNOINTR instead of -EINTR, so that userspace will never see a
> > failure to grab the mutex.
> >
> > Slightly earlier Liam R. Howlett defined mutex_lock_killable for
> > exactly the same situation but it does it a little more cleanly.
>
> mutex_lock_interruptible() and mutex_lock_killable() are completely
> different operations, and the difference has absolutely nothing to do
> with -ERESTARTNOINTR or -EINTR.
>
> [...]
>
> And Kees, what the heck is that "Reviewed-by" for? Worthless review too.
Yeah, I messed that up; apologies. And I know exactly where my brain
misfired on this one. On a related note, I must stop doing code reviews
on Friday night. :)
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists